Team Communication
Columbia College of Missouri
Business Communications
Teamwork Activity – 60 Points
After watching the original 12 Angry Men movie in class, answer each of the following questions completely and submit via the drop box on D2L.
Team Communication/Team Success
1. During this initial or straw vote, we see hesitation on the part of some members when casting their votes. In your opinion, what explains this hesitation? If you were the foreperson, what might you have done differently?
2. After this vote, some members can be seen pressuring the single dissenting member. If this were to happen in a team you were facilitating, what intervention would you use and why?
3. In the movie the foreman suggests one process (“Let’s all go around the table and convince this man why he’s wrong”), and immediately thereafter, another jury member suggests a different process (“It seems to me that he – the dissenter – should be the one who tries to convince us”). Both processes have value. How would you help the group choose between the processes? What, specifically, would you say or do?
4. Periodically, we see jury members treat one another harshly (remarks that are ethnically or age discriminatory). If you had to lead this group, would you intervene during these moments? Why or why not? If you would intervene, what would you say or do and why?
5. Different jury members have different personality styles, which are also true on most teams; what are some ways to point out these differences in a way that enables members to benefit from instead of being aggravated by these differences?
6. Did the jury go through the four stages of teaming? Identify the stages they went through and cite evidence from the movie to support your answer.
Business Communications
Teamwork Activity – 60 Points
After watching the original 12 Angry Men movie in class, answer each of the following questions completely and submit via the drop box on D2L.
Team Communication/Team Success
1. During this initial or straw vote, we see hesitation on the part of some members when casting their votes. In your opinion, what explains this hesitation? If you were the foreperson, what might you have done differently?
2. After this vote, some members can be seen pressuring the single dissenting member. If this were to happen in a team you were facilitating, what intervention would you use and why?
3. In the movie the foreman suggests one process (“Let’s all go around the table and convince this man why he’s wrong”), and immediately thereafter, another jury member suggests a different process (“It seems to me that he – the dissenter – should be the one who tries to convince us”). Both processes have value. How would you help the group choose between the processes? What, specifically, would you say or do?
4. Periodically, we see jury members treat one another harshly (remarks that are ethnically or age discriminatory). If you had to lead this group, would you intervene during these moments? Why or why not? If you would intervene, what would you say or do and why?
5. Different jury members have different personality styles, which are also true on most teams; what are some ways to point out these differences in a way that enables members to benefit from instead of being aggravated by these differences?
6. Did the jury go through the four stages of teaming? Identify the stages they went through and cite evidence from the movie to support your answer.